Questions about homosexuality before returning to the Faith

[Maggyie]

Maybe the way I described the situation lead you to assume she preached satan's tunes unrelentingly to a flock of shiver sheep but that is not the case. She exists in the community and reacts. She doesnt hide what she thinks but she doesnt go around pushing it in the faces of those around her. She is accepting of the people who are not accepting of her.

what does "exists in the community and reacts" mean. How did people find out about her views unless she made it a point to TELL people? Or do they have a budget for mind reading and/or private investigations in the parish? Believe it or not Catholic parishes are stuffed with people who believe in birth control and gay marriage and everything else. However since most people don't make a big fat production out of it, wearing sign boards and such, it's pretty much a private matter for people to work on. 

Like I wouldn't go downtown to the shul and mention as an aside about how men and women should pray in the same space, and the separation of the sexes is omagherd sooo outdated. Because I wasn't raised to be a self righteous bigot you know? I do think men and women should worship together, but guess what, my personal opinion doesn't mean I get to disrupt that community with it. Belonging to a faith tradition is about listening and LEARNING. Not about colonizing them with your western cultural ideas.

I know just the sort of self righteous ignorant white-lady-with-an-MFA you're describing though.  Again try to encourage her to travel, taking in non-Western cultural values. Her head will EXPLODE! lol.

One of my ignorant-white-lady coworkers went to southern Africa and before she left was all "Ah the all natural black people, can't wait to learn from their organic wisdom." Upon return she shared with us her disgust that they had TOTALLY different ideas about gender and sex than she did. And the animists were more conservative than the Christians! And many of the animists practiced polygamy and didn't see anything wrong with it! Shocking. Of course she PRESUMED to try to educate them about how the Western understanding of women's liberation is allegedly better and preferable to their own longstanding gender traditions. Couldn't understand why the men AND the women were offended.

your sister in law is probably welcome to go to Mass at that parish like any ordinary person, they just told her since she made a production of her views about sexual ethics she shouldnt be parading in a leadership role like cantor. Since she went and TOLD people now when she cantors she gives the impression to those she TOLD that the community's values don't matter.

so since she can't cantor she probably threw a fit "but look at me I have a MASTERS degree in vocal work!!! So much more valuable than the little old lady who believes with the church and can just carry a tune!" So oppressed. So white. 

[CrossCuT]

what does "exists in the community and reacts" mean. How did people find out about her views unless she made it a point to TELL people? Or do they have a budget for mind reading and/or private investigations in the parish? Believe it or not Catholic parishes are stuffed with people who believe in birth control and gay marriage and everything else. However since most people don't make a big fat production out of it, wearing sign boards and such, it's pretty much a private matter for people to work on. 

Like I wouldn't go downtown to the shul and mention as an aside about how men and women should pray in the same space, and the separation of the sexes is omagherd sooo outdated. Because I wasn't raised to be a self righteous bigot you know? I do think men and women should worship together, but guess what, my personal opinion doesn't mean I get to disrupt that community with it. Belonging to a faith tradition is about listening and LEARNING. Not about colonizing them with your western cultural ideas.

I know just the sort of self righteous ignorant white-lady-with-an-MFA you're describing though.  Again try to encourage her to travel, taking in non-Western cultural values. Her head will EXPLODE! lol.

One of my ignorant-white-lady coworkers went to southern Africa and before she left was all "Ah the all natural black people, can't wait to learn from their organic wisdom." Upon return she shared with us her disgust that they had TOTALLY different ideas about gender and sex than she did. And the animists were more conservative than the Christians! And many of the animists practiced polygamy and didn't see anything wrong with it! Shocking. Of course she PRESUMED to try to educate them about how the Western understanding of women's liberation is allegedly better and preferable to their own longstanding gender traditions. Couldn't understand why the men AND the women were offended.

your sister in law is probably welcome to go to Mass at that parish like any ordinary person, they just told her since she made a production of her views about sexual ethics she shouldnt be parading in a leadership role like cantor. Since she went and TOLD people now when she cantors she gives the impression to those she TOLD that the community's values don't matter.

so since she can't cantor she probably threw a fit "but look at me I have a MASTERS degree in vocal work!!! So much more valuable than the little old lady who believes with the church and can just carry a tune!" So oppressed. So white. 

It probably comes out the same way Catholics have to make a point to not support Homosexual relationships or snub homosexual persons in order to "not support" the lifestyle. Ive been in many situations where a religious extremist exhibits disgust over a person they deem an unforgivable sinner and confide in me in a way in which they expect reciprocation. Of course I cannot reciprocate such feelings so I make my thoughts known in a respectful way if possible or if I dont like the person, Ill just tell them straight out. 

But in the realm of possibilities, I think you could at least afford my sister in law a mild sense of benefit of the doubt as to her character in the matter. I never in any way suggested she was an ill tempered behemoth that made a habit of sounding the trumpets of her inner thoughts to anyone who didnt ask. In fact I think your assumption speaks volumes to the type of judgement most holier than thou Catholics take. Because I disclosed some of her personal sins that would tarnish her name in your eyes, you drew your own line of assumption filling in the gaps as to the manner of her revealing her beliefs. 

I really dont know why her personal beliefs would matter when all she does is sing words on a page especially since she has as much intention to worship God as anyone else. Surely you wouldnt suggest that someone with a different faith is any less fervent in prayer than a Catholic? As well as the fact that she isnt in a place to teach morals; she lead the congregation in song. I have been in many choirs including church choirs where Lutherans were present during a Catholic service and no one batted an eye or claimed the music was tainted because non Catholics were singing.

 

I just find it odd that the way you took my story was that my sister in law was obviously a spoiled, pompous, loud mouth and essentially deserved to be booted. To me it speaks volumes of the type of attitude that pushes people away. The church (small c) is much more of an exclusive club than a refuge for sinners.

[Maggyie]

Believe it or not cross cut I have my own issues with the church which I carefully keep to myself, however I used to be a lector and I quit because I am not sure I will ALWAYS be able to keep it to myself in a way that wouldn't make people do a double take if they saw me up there.

Cantor is not singing words on a page, it's a liturgical role where you are proclaiming the living word (errrr, singing). She can sing/pray musically just as well, perhaps better, in the congregation than up there with the spotlight on. That is, if it's actually about prayer and not about attention or head pats. Have you heard any Catholic congregations sing lately? They need some help. 

Since the church rejects anti gay bigotry it would be one's Christian duty to reprimand a religious extremist who was nasty about it. It doesn't follow that you have to disclose you also reject the church's teaching about gay people, in the opposite direction. 

Of course some people think ANY rejection of gay sex as unethical makes one an extremist (like the Dalai Lama, the pope, Mother Teresa). Those people are called bigots. 

[Ice_nine]

 

And did you ever consider that my disapproval (expressed by not attending the committment ceremony and my writing a response on the invitation to not go through with it because it was putting her soul in danger) triggered her to treat me as invisible in the first place?  Or should I have attended the ceremony and sinned by giving public approval to their situation?

You said something along the lines of "I don't acknowledge her partner or talk to her unless I need her to move out of the way." You think that's an acceptable way to respond and I just wanted to let any readers no that I think it is a ridiculous futile way to respond. Perhaps I'm the only one that feels that way.

Since you mentioned false dichotomies, it's not as though your only two options are 1)pretending someone doesn't exist and 2) attending a gay wedding ceremony.

I don't think a Catholic should go to a gay wedding, but your response seems imprudent. In essence you've made my point. All you really achieve with your method is absolving yourself of guilt for doing what you feel is the "right thing." Now it's pretty easy for you to wash your hands of the whole situation and say "well I tried, but she didn't listen, it's on her now not me," and be done with it. Even if you didn't want to give up it's irrelevant because apparently she now treats you like you're invisible because of your initial response to her.

So in many ways your method is the path of least resistance. You're done with her now, whether your door is open or not she's not likely to walk through. Besides the lingering fear you have that her soul will likely perish, which most devout folks have to deal with, you're home free. You ticked off the "admonish the sinner" box and you can go home and God will not punish you for doing what you thought was right even though it was woefully ineffective.

And yet you consider my response weak because I choose to keep communication open with gay friends and family, enduring the constant tension of believing how they're living is wrong and choosing carefully when to say something, if I should say something, and how I should say it; and knowing anything I say could potentially nudge them closer to or farther from the truth. Sometimes waiting until the time where it seems like they're ready and open to the truth, a day which sadly may never come. This is weak? Perhaps in the sense of avoiding confrontation, but what good is confrontation if it further entrenches people into a world of lies?

It's not a perfect approach, but nor is yours. And I think your approach smacks of an "I'd rather not deal with this," attitude. But I guess God will judge both of us in the end on that.
 

[CrossCuT]

Believe it or not cross cut I have my own issues with the church which I carefully keep to myself, however I used to be a lector and I quit because I am not sure I will ALWAYS be able to keep it to myself in a way that wouldn't make people do a double take if they saw me up there.

If you have issues with the church, why are you still a Catholic? Do you deserve to remain in the company of better Catholics? Should you be reprimanded for your doubts? Or should you only be reprimanded if people find out?

These are honest questions. Ones that were alos posed to me not too long ago and are also the result of many peoples experiences.

[Maggyie]

If you have issues with the church, why are you still a Catholic? Do you deserve to remain in the company of better Catholics? Should you be reprimanded for your doubts? Or should you only be reprimanded if people find out?

These are honest questions. Ones that were alos posed to me not too long ago and are also the result of many peoples experiences.

again probably 90-95% of Catholics have "issues." When the founder of your church is on record demanding that you "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" there are going to be issues. The difference is approaching it with humility, respect, and a DESIRE to listen and grow, as opposed to choosing to stop listening and stop growing. I doubt that your sister in law is still praying about her position on gay marriage. I doubt if Jesus appeared in the sky on a mustang stallion, whether that would move her. She probably is shut down on this and some other issues. Dialogue is probably not her strong suit. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with people living the Smug Life (including the more orthodox than thou types with sticks up their rears). they follow a certain pattern of rigidity and lack of self awareness.

There are people whose attitude on these topics is "I know what I think but I could be wrong,  I want to shut up and learn from the wisdom of ages" and others whose attitude is "I know I'm right (because my opinion matches XYZ opinion poll, because it makes me feel a certain way, because I'm smart). Shut up and listen to ME thousand year old global institution."

People who feel ostracized because they aren't allowed to take the mic and put on a show every Sunday generally fall into the second category. They often mistakenly believe it's about them, in fact jobs like that are about SERVING the faith heritage not "getting to" have a role. Self awareness is key. 

Also Norseman I doubt your relative is under any misapprehension  about your religious opinions, nor will they be asking you to be godfather. However failing to acknowledge the other person's role in your relative's life is rude and counter productive. You don't have to acknowledge their sex life. These people are just important to each other. 

[CrossCuT]

again probably 90-95% of Catholics have "issues." When the founder of your church is on record demanding that you "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" there are going to be issues. The difference is approaching it with humility, respect, and a DESIRE to listen and grow, as opposed to choosing to stop listening and stop growing. I doubt that your sister in law is still praying about her position on gay marriage. I doubt if Jesus appeared in the sky on a mustang stallion, whether that would move her. She probably is shut down on this and some other issues. Dialogue is probably not her strong suit. I could be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with people living the Smug Life (including the more orthodox than thou types with sticks up their rears). they follow a certain pattern of rigidity and lack of self awareness.

I really dont understand how you can sit here and make all these assumptions of her character and assume the worst of her. You have no idea what lead her to think or feel what she does. I feel like the appropriate Catholic response is one of love and sympathy, not blame and exile.

Would you feel confident dismissing a person based on your assumption of their intentions when you know 1 tiny snippet of their story? Seems like youre ready to pull the plug on her which means you probably do that to a lot of people. I have to admit its not out of character with a lot of fundamentalist Christians but to me its more of a disease than a virtue. 

[veritasluxmea]

again probably 90-95% of Catholics have "issues." When the founder of your church is on record demanding that you "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" there are going to be issues. The difference is approaching it with humility, respect, and a DESIRE to listen and grow, as opposed to choosing to stop listening and stop growing.

This resonates strongly with me. My guess is every Catholic who starts moving forward with God encounters issues, since we're all human. I know I did, and still do. Long story short, in the end, I decided to place my trust in God, and submit and face how He chooses to reveal Himself to and reconcile with humanity, rather than choosing my own preferences and trusting in myself. It made me a different person, my relationship with God changed me. 

On the side subject of non-Catholics being involved at mass, I think it's would be appropriate/ok for a non-Catholic to help/be involved in the music ministry at church, if they are honest about their beliefs and respect and give preference to the Church's beliefs, (for example, if asked, say something along the lines of "I'm not Catholic so this is what I believe as a ___, but the Catholic Church teaches something else.") It wouldn't be appropriate for them to lead anything or teach RCIA or something.

It's another story if someone claims to actually be Catholic but holds beliefs/lives contrary to Church teaching. (Cohabitating, supporting gay marriage, not having repented of or supporting premarital sex, promoting birth control, ect). It would not be appropriate for them to represent at mass. 

You said something along the lines of "I don't acknowledge her partner or talk to her unless I need her to move out of the way." You think that's an acceptable way to respond and I just wanted to let any readers no that I think it is a ridiculous futile way to respond. Perhaps I'm the only one that feels that way.
 

I pretty much agree with you, I don't think that the best, or even an appropriate way to respond. 

Edited September 28, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Gabriela]

Can I just remind everyone that it is 100% impossible to give all the relevant details of a situation through the internet, and so it is also 100% impossible to judge the moral status of a situation on the internet. How much more so, then, for a whole person, ESPECIALLY when that person's actions are being communicated by someone else.

I propose we all chill out on the assumptions and evaluations. A lot of things could be going on. We can't fairly or accurately judge which assessment is the correct one, so trying to do that will not only do us no good—it may very well do us (and others) harm.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

 

On the side subject of non-Catholics being involved at mass, I think it's would be appropriate/ok for a non-Catholic to help/be involved in the music ministry at church, if they are honest about their beliefs and respect and give preference to the Church's beliefs, (for example, if asked, say something along the lines of "I'm not Catholic so this is what I believe as a ___, but the Catholic Church teaches something else.") It wouldn't be appropriate for them to lead anything or teach RCIA or something.

You make a good point here. The music ministry of a parish may be one place where a non-Catholic could contribute, as long as they follow the Church's practices when in Church. For example, unless a parish has a glut of good organists, it might be necessary to hire a non-Catholic organist to play at Mass, and I don't think this would compromise the nature of the Mass as long as the organist followed all instructions. Catholic musicians would be preferable in the music ministry, but it might be better to have a non-Catholic organist than no organ music at all, particularly at one of the main Sunday Masses or a High Mass.  

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Can I just remind everyone that it is 100% impossible to give all the relevant details of a situation through the internet, and so it is also 100% impossible to judge the moral status of a situation on the internet. How much more so, then, for a whole person, ESPECIALLY when that person's actions are being communicated by someone else.

I propose we all chill out on the assumptions and evaluations. A lot of things could be going on. We can't fairly or accurately judge which assessment is the correct one, so trying to do that will not only do us no good—it may very well do us (and others) harm.

Amen!

[Archaeology cat]

You make a good point here. The music ministry of a parish may be one place where a non-Catholic could contribute, as long as they follow the Church's practices when in Church. For example, unless a parish has a glut of good organists, it might be necessary to hire a non-Catholic organist to play at Mass, and I don't think this would compromise the nature of the Mass as long as the organist followed all instructions. Catholic musicians would be preferable in the music ministry, but it might be better to have a non-Catholic organist than no organ music at all, particularly at one of the main Sunday Masses or a High Mass.  

Our organist is Anglican.  He's more traditional than many in the parish, and I doubt many know he isn't Catholic. He doesn't have a teaching role, of course. The music director is a convert from the Anglican church, actually. 

[CrossCuT]

Can I just remind everyone that it is 100% impossible to give all the relevant details of a situation through the internet, and so it is also 100% impossible to judge the moral status of a situation on the internet. How much more so, then, for a whole person, ESPECIALLY when that person's actions are being communicated by someone else.

I propose we all chill out on the assumptions and evaluations. A lot of things could be going on. We can't fairly or accurately judge which assessment is the correct one, so trying to do that will not only do us no good—it may very well do us (and others) harm.

Thank you. I used my sister in law as a quick example in response to the OP. I didnt know her character would thus be on the line. But I completely agree that I cannot adequately communicate her thoughts for her over the internet. 

[Ice_nine]

I cannot adequately communicate her thoughts for her over the internet. 

Invite her on here then! mwahaha

 

[CrossCuT]

I honestly dont think she has time between work, singing, moving, wedding, and the baby. But Ill babysit that cute little muffin so she can debate with everyone on PM! Haha

Edited September 29, 2015 by CrossCuT